The truth about tongues: a DIVISIVE force in Christianity today

Ah, okay – I suspected that might be where it came from - 1 Cor.14:18.

With Paul, being the apostle to the Gentiles, it stands to reason that he would have used his knowledge of languages (he really only needed knowledge of three) more than his fellow believers in order to spread the word and teach the Gospel to people of other lands and nations.

Since this was in a sense his “job”, so-to-speak, he would have naturally had to speak in these other languages more than the average person.

Paul was likely fluent in three languages; Aramaic, Greek and, being an educated Pharisee, Hebrew. It’s quite possible he also spoke some Latin. He could have gone virtually anywhere in the Mediterranean Basin and not have language/communication issues.

No mystery here – he’s simply referring to his use of (foreign) languages to spread the message of the Gospel to the Gentiles. There’s absolutely zero here that remotely hints towards modern tongues-speech.

From the beginning of the modern pentecostal movement there were those who thought that tongues could be used to go on the mission field and preach to the lost, but that was always bad hermeneutics on their part. That did not happen in the book of Acts and it never was the plan of God for tongues. Not everyone held to that bad hermeneutic. As to the explanation why someone changed their minds, maybe it was because they discovered sound hermeneutics on this subject by studying the word of God. People are allowed to do that you know? Change their minds as they learn authorial intent in scriptures. It's ok to change your mind if you figure out where you turned left concerning the rules of hermeneutics but should have turned right, or gone straight.

I don't think any scholar worth his credentials would agree with you that Paul was not referring to the supernatural Holy Spirit gift of tongues when he said he spoke in tongues more than them all. And of course I gave you verse 14 but you commented on another instead. However, To interpret that he was talking about his learned languages and not referring to a supernatural gift of the Spirit is nothing I have ever heard before and obviously wrong based on the rule of context. It does not require a scholar to know that it is a wrong hermeneutic. Reading comprehension skills would be all that is needed to recognize that he was referring to the Gift of Tongues. You are going out on a limb of interpretation that will not support you, nor will most theologians who are NOT pentecostal.

Another possibility is that the miracle was on the ears of the hearers. It is quite possible that if you were there what the 120 were speaking would sound to you like the tongues you may have heard in a pentecostal or charismatic gathering, what you have been saying sounds like gibberish to you.

That is why the OTHERS mocked them and said that they were drunk.

It is quite possible that people from different nations might have heard the same disciple speaking and each heard them in their own language.

It is possible that some of them realized this was going on and that their wide eyed "what meaneth this" was because their Elamite neighbor was understanding the same person speaking as the Pamphylian next to him was understanding and they were even the more confounded because that they all understood the same speakers and so it was obvious that a great miracle was going on beyond their comprehension to make sense of. It is one thing to hear someone speak in your native language, but to realize that all the other foreigners understood him in their own language? Well then What Meaneth This Indeed!

Now this is not a stretch or a strain of the text. It is a plain interpretation based on the text that is quite miraculous and possibly a correct interpretation. I did not invent this interpretation. You will read about it as a possibility in commentaries from time to time. I am not sure if there is anything in the Greek that would exclude it as a possibility.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

There is a lot of being 'confounded, amazed, marvelling, and being in doubt to the meaning of it' for it to be just that you are hearing a man from Galilee speak in your own language. Especially if you do not know the men, you just know that they are Galilaeans. I would think that your first thought would be "Oh nice, they have been practicing our native tongue to make us feel welcome and now they are going to tell us something about God in our own tongues" But would you be confounded, amazed, marvel and be in doubt as to what it all means? Probably not. However if you heard Nathaniel speaking in your native Mesopotamian, and next to you A man you met for breakfast that morning from Egypt also understanding Nathaniel in Egyptian, well then.. You would be Amazed, marveling, greatly confounded trying to make sense of ... How Can This Happen? What does it mean? So I lean toward this understanding.

I think to the OTHER mockers, it sounded like what you hear today.

From this point on, all of the other instances of tongues there were no foreigners who heard it in their own native language, it would have just sounded like tongues with no interpreter, the Samarians, the Ephesians, the House of Cornelius, Paul, the Corinthians. There are no hints of people from other nations being at Corinth and hearing someone in their own language. I think that only happened at Pentecost. All the other times are examples of what we can expect when believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit. There will be no foreigners that hear in their own language. The initial experience requires no interpreters. The personal prayer requires not interpretation. In the assembly when one person speaks out during the appropriate time for others to hear, someone with the gift of interpretation will receive it from the Holy Spirit on the spot and give it and all will be edified. There is no need for a translator of foreign languages to be present as that is NOT the gift of interpretation and the tongue is not a foreign language as they were not in the Corinthian church, house of Cornelius, Ephesus, Samarians.
And I propose they were not just the 120 each speaking one foreign language in Acts 2 but rather that each speakers was understood by those who heard them in their own language but others thought they were babbling just like people who really speak in tongues today get accused of.

I cannot prove this interpretation is the perfect one, but until I have a reason to see it otherwise this is what I think happened on that day. I am trying to "listen to the Spirit in the Text" If I see that I have violated any rules of hermeneutics in this interpretation I will correct it and line up my interpretation with any clarity I discover.

The entire context is abilities that are not natural. The gifts described in chapter 12 are given by the Holy Spirit, so they do not occur among non-Christians... period. No mere human being can prophesy (accurately) or heal (doctors only support healing). The gift of tongues is among these gifts, so even if the languages are "human", the ability to speak (or interpret) them is not naturally acquired.

The Holy Prophetical Scripture was written be men moved by the (Holy Ghost)

The KJV is written in the (English Language), and no this isn't "Tongues of Angels"

2 Peter 1:21KJV
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

While you quote the verse accurately, your comment seems to imply that all of Scripture is prophetic in nature. It is not, and the verse addresses prophecy specifically, not narrative, poetry, proverbs, or the other genres present in the Bible.

Well which word of God (prophecy) is not prophetic as a law of interpretation? The ones understood? Or the ones that make a person wonder?

Prophetic = declare the word of God.

Do we need more than he has declared. Something missing? A law?

If what you say is true, then the smartest people of the world could read the Bible and understand it better than a person with child like faith could.

Prophetical Scripture. The word of God or the oral tradition of men . Which teaching master?

It did happen in Acts 2, if you were to read and not ignore it

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Again they were confounded confused not believing. Jesus said marvel not. . Taking away the need to wonder in doubt rather than walking by faith (believing the prophecy ).

The wonderful works of God's prophecy God's tongue.

There is nothing in that text that says that they preached the Gospel. They spoke in tongues the wonderful works of God. It was exuberant praise to God that they were doing and the foreigners were able to understand it by a miracle of God.

Peter preached the Gospel to them and he used the common language. There is no history of these 120 using these tongues to go on the mission field.

The context makes it clear that the Gospel was preached by Peter and not in tongues. If you were to read you would not be able to miss that, or ignore it.

"...Luke uses the same Greek terms to describe what takes place when the Spirit is received in Acts 2.4, Acts 10.46, and Acts 19.6. Why, we may ask, does Luke use the same language to describe each of the events even though they actually refer to different activities? This striking literary connection suggests that Luke has intentionally shaped his narrative in order to highlight this linkage. In other words, the pattern is important to him.
The significance of the verbal connections between the γλώσσαις (tongues) of these three passages becomes apparent when we examine Luke’s understanding of the role of tongues in the life of the church."
Menzies, Robert. Speaking in Tongues: Jesus and the Apostolic Church as Models for the Church Today (p. 18). CPT Press. Kindle Edition.

We know that it was the same gift but there were no foreigners to hear in the other instances and no interpreter needed either. There was no evangelism preaching of the Gospel in tongues in any of these three events.

In 1 Corinthians 12-14 Paul refers to the gift of tongues (γλώσσαις) and uses the phrase λαλέω γλώσσαις to designate unintelligible utterances inspired by the Spirit. The fact that this gift of tongues refers to unintelligible utterances (e.g. the glossolalia experienced in contemporary Pentecostal churches) rather than known human languages (xenolalia) is confirmed by the fact that Paul explicitly states that these tongues must be interpreted if they are to be understood (1 Cor. 14.6-19, 28; cf. 12.10, 30). Additionally, Paul clearly believes that one can interpret these tongues only if one has a special gift of the Spirit to do so (1 Cor. 12.10). In other words, since Paul does not entertain the possibility that someone with a knowledge of the particular tongue being spoken might be present and thus be able to interpret, it is evident that intelligible human languages are not in view at this point.

Menzies, Robert. Speaking in Tongues: Jesus and the Apostolic Church as Models for the Church Today (p. 16). CPT Press. Kindle Edition.

Of course, Peter don't have to preach anything other than Hebrew. It was meant as a sign to all the unbelieving Jews there. (1 Cor 14:22)

If all of them go "shaba shaba shaba" instead of going in a known foreign language, there won't be about 3000 unbelieving Jews who were convicted and asked Peter, "What shall I do" (Acts 2:37)

Peter probably spoke to them in Aramaic. That seems to be the most common guess. Aramaic or Hebrew but probably Aramaic however we cannot be sure about it. No one I have read says he spoke in tongues when he addressed them. They heard them speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God were amazed that they could all understand in their own tongue and then Peter addressed them without speaking in tongues. So Peter was speaking in tongues at first, then he stopped and addressed them in Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek and my point is still valid, there is no record of anyone preaching the Gospel in tongues. That is a logic leap that is a bad hermeneutic.
Are you going to make me repeat this again? Or can you concede to at least this one point.

I already agreed with you, my point was not that Peter was preaching in any tongue other than Hebrew.

My point was that tongues were clearly a known foreign language in Acts 2. It was meant as a sign to unbelievers.

Almost every time you use the word "as", the words after it make the sentence less clear. Your grasp of English grammar is such that you make it more difficult for your readers to understand what you're saying. In this case, "as a law of interpretation" is distantly related to the verse in question, but the way you structured the sentence, "as a law of interpretation" refers to "word". So, what you have written is, "Which word as a law of interpretation is not prophetic?" Can you see how that does not make sense? You expect others to understand you, and you apologize for your poor grammar, but you refuse to learn and improve yourself.

"Prophetic" also means "to declare events prior to their occurrence". That is the sense in the verse in question.

They heard them in their own languages. It is very possible that two men from different countries heard the same person speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God (addressed to God not to the gathering crowd) and both men understood the same speaker in their own language, making this a miracle that they were amazed, marveled, confounded, and in doubt asking What could this Mean?

Also... the fact that it was not known languages in Corinthians is obvious by the following facts....

In 1 Corinthians 12-14 Paul refers to the gift of tongues (γλώσσαις) and uses the phrase λαλέω γλώσσαις to designate unintelligible utterances inspired by the Spirit. The fact that this gift of tongues refers to unintelligible utterances (e.g. the glossolalia experienced in contemporary Pentecostal churches) rather than known human languages (xenolalia) is confirmed by the fact that Paul explicitly states that these tongues must be interpreted if they are to be understood (1 Cor. 14.6-19, 28; cf. 12.10, 30). Additionally, Paul clearly believes that one can interpret these tongues only if one has a special gift of the Spirit to do so (1 Cor. 12.10). In other words, since Paul does not entertain the possibility that someone with a knowledge of the particular tongue being spoken might be present and thus be able to interpret, it is evident that intelligible human languages are not in view at this point.

Menzies, Robert. Speaking in Tongues: Jesus and the Apostolic Church as Models for the Church Today (p. 16). CPT Press. Kindle Edition.

The gift of prophecy is God's interpretation or tongue to mankind. Part of that gift is he warns us with words of understanding of those who say we do need a man to teach us. One is our teacher the Holy Spirit .

Lying wonders is not a gift. Gifts are proven as true by comparing the spiritual understanding hid form natural man to the same spiritual . Not literal to literal . No faith. it is also referred to as "faith to faith" .the power of gospel words not noises. . .as lying wonders

If you compare senseless sounds to senseless sound. It proves senselessness. It simply leaves a person wondering. Not a gift

Lying wonders produce lying wonders.. they the produce a strong delusion from God to continue to believe the lie .Falling backward slain in the spirit proves it That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in wondering

2 Thessalonians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Today what is the purpose of making senseless sounds. without meaning .Certainly not love the truth . There is no truth in “Saw lasaw saw lasaw.Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw.Ze’er sham ze’er sham.” . . . .wonderment fill ups

But they would not listen to him. So the Lord’s words will be senseless sounds to them:

“Saw lasaw saw lasaw.
Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw.
Ze’er sham ze’er sham.”

When the people try to walk, they will fall backwards. They will be defeated, trapped, and captured. Isiah 28: 13

Will they listen today or wonder?